| |
Passions

Ashish Hemrajani got into sailing eight years ago while holidaying in the Bay of Islands in New Zealand. He's been hooked ever since.
read more |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|

Give your website a makeover. After all, it is the face of your organisation in cyber space.
read more
|
|
|
|

Lessons to be learnt from the journey of three businesses, as they find their way to profits.
read more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Real Ayn Rand
Her books created a whole
generation of entrepreneurs.
But what was Ayn
Rand really like? A new
biography sheds light on the
person that triggered a million
ambitions.

BY LEIGH BUCHANAN
Ayn Rand was capitalism’s Helen of Troy: the brain that launched a thousand
wild ambitions. A Russian Jew forced to flee her home of St. Petersburg in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution,
Rand immigrated to a United States erupting in skyscrapers and highways and championed a new
philosophy with man at its centre and rationality, work, and self-interest as its principles. Novels like The Fountainhead
(1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) set millions of feet marching to the beats of different drummers. If
readers sometimes came for the volcanic sex scenes, they stayed for the titanic vision of individual achievement.
Anne C Heller’s new biography, Ayn Rand and the World She Made (Doubleday), portrays the author
as part god, part gorgon: a woman of powerful intellect and petty grievances who preached lofty individualism
while demanding lockstep allegiance from her followers. Inc. editor-at-large Leigh Buchanan
recently visited Heller, a magazine editor and journalist who worked on the book for five years, to talk about Rand’s life.
A Book of the Month Club survey
pegged Atlas Shrugged as the second
most influential book after the Bible.
I think Rand has this life-changing effect on
people because many read her at a tender age.
It’s a time when they are trying to separate
from their parents and the context of their
childhood and to become somebody on
their own. And her language is so uplifting—
it goes swooping up into the clouds when she
talks about the characters she considers
heroes. The reader travels along with her.
Entrepreneurs, in particular, love
Rand. They buy her books in first
editions. They name companies
after her characters.
Rand would love what they are doing as well.
I think part of her appeal is she gives people
permission to do whatever they damn well
want, so long as it’s idealistic in some way.
Rand’s emphasis is on productive, original
business. She ennobles something that
might otherwise be treated as mundane. So
entrepreneurs are inspired by the heroic
enterprise in Atlas Shrugged. People
became architects after reading The Fountainhead.
She also teaches some very interesting
lessons about punishing talent, that
mediocre people try to drag down those
who are more talented than they are.
Entrepreneurs love to talk about
all the people who once called
them crazy.
Rand was aware that most people prefer
safety to risk. In her novels and nonfiction,
she celebrated entrepreneurs as the productive
engines and unsung heroes of 150 years
of Western prosperity.
Rand wrote in a period when most
people wanted safe jobs in large
companies. Do you think her work
ushered in, or at least presaged, the
romantic idea of entrepreneurship
that prevailed later in the century? In the 1950s and 1960s, she was certainly the
most visible proponent of the brainpower,
courage, creativity, and vision she attributed
to independent businessmen, and she
fiercely defended their right to the wealth
they generated. She also inspired the libertarian
movement of the 1970s—though she
didn’t approve of it—which entrepreneurs
often find sympathetic to their aims.
What would an Ayn Rand-style
hero for post-industrial America
look like? Which business or political
leader comes closest?
Most important, a Randian hero operates
outside the realm of government subsidies
and government contracts. I imagine she
would have loved Bill Gates in his early
years. As to politicians, she liked very few, for
reasons you can guess.
As you researched her life, what
most surprised you?
Rand’s mission was to create an “ideal man”
and a microcosmic ideal world in Atlas
Shrugged. When the culmination of her life’s
work was greeted with derision by the educational
establishment, she lost much of her
energy and curiosity. In many ways, she
became a very ordinary person.
Rand seemed to presage the very
contemporary idea of self as
brand. To what extent did sheanticipate the likes of Anthony
Robbins and Oprah?
She had no wish to be at the centre of an
enterprise, except as it helped to spread her
influence and ideas. It was her long-time
protégé and lover, Nathaniel Branden, who
launched her business ventures. Unlike her,
he was a gifted promoter and businessman.
He sold everything he could think of: reproductions
of art and music she loved, tapes of
her lectures—only he had the brilliant idea
of renting the tapes instead of selling them.
So people would play the tapes for groups
and charge admission, then send him back
the tapes plus 50% of the profits. Rand’s
income from these ventures was small compared
with sales of her books. But the tapes
and music services helped keep those sales
humming. And the art service sold prints of
her husband’s paintings.
Certainly Rand was unusually conscious
of the commercial value of her
name—her brand—and protected it
fiercely from usurpers. She even had a lawyer
on retainer just to pursue people who
advertised a John Galt line of curtains or
Roark drill bits. The curtains were a real
product, by the way.
Given that Alan Greenspan was a
member of her coterie and contributor
to her newsletter, to what extent
should we hold Rand accountable for
the economic meltdown?
To what extent can Marx be blamed for Stalin’s
massacres? I don’t like to blame the writers
and thinkers for the way the executors
use their ideas. That’s silly.
It wasn’t until last year that Greenspan
retracted the arguments for self-interest that
he made in the essay “The Assault on Integrity,”
published in Rand’s newsletter The
Objectivist in 1963. I find it incredible that
he went 45 years without having revised that
thinking. Still, the Randians liked him less
over time. They think he sold out because he
didn’t reinstate the gold standard.
What would Rand have thought of
the fortunes being made from
Facebook and similar companies?
She would not like people who use such things
and might not love the things themselves. But
she would say if people are willing to pay for it,
then you have a right to the money. Rand idealised
the Founding Fathers and the tycoons
of late 18th- and 19th-century America. The
railroad builders and the steelmakers. The
miners and the inventors. She admired big
engineering projects. But as she got older,
people seemed to get smaller. They were doing
smaller things. What she would not have liked
is people doing a little arbitrage, earning
US$250 million, and taking that out of the
productive capital of the country.
It’s interesting that Rand wrote
sweeping epics full of exalted
ideas about the ascendancy of
man, yet she’s almost as famous
for her sex scenes.
I think the sex scenes are very appealing to
many people. Rand would say that we have
been taught that there is a mind-body split.
The body’s lusts are bad, but the mind can
control them. She would argue there is no
mind-body split. What your soul longs for,
your body longs for, too. If you are a moral
person, you desire the best thing you see out
there for yourself.
Are the keepers of her flame possessive
of her? Did you encounter
any resistance or hostility?
The keenest resistance came from the single
heir to Rand’s property, papers, and copyrights,
a former philosophy professor and
Rand disciple named Leonard Peikoff. Peikoff
remained by Rand’s side through her
final illness and death in 1982. He is a strict
constructionist of Randian ideas and the
chief guardian of her legend, which, according
to him and his circle of friends, is as the
world’s best novelist and greatest philosopher
after Aristotle.
In 1986, Peikoff’s cousin, Nathaniel
Branden’s ex-wife Barbara Branden, wrote
a book that disclosed for the first time the
fact that Nathaniel had been Rand’s lover as
well as her acolyte, although he was 25
years her junior. Peikoff refused to believe
this until some years later, when hard evidence
turned up. He has not spoken to
more than a few outsiders since then, and
he would not speak with me or grant me
access to her papers.
Both the Brandens were major
sources for you. I’m surprised they
are not retributive, given her treatment
of them.
The Brandens have been publicly attacked by
generations of Randian true believers, and
they had a story to tell. They met Rand as
worshipful undergraduate students in 1951.
In my view, Rand engineered the Brandens’
disastrous marriage so that she could safely
take Nathaniel, then 24, as her lover. She was
49. She browbeat Barbara and her own husband,
Frank O’Connor, a passive, gentle man,
into agreeing to the affair and keeping it a
secret. It lasted 14 years. And when finally, at
38, Nathaniel fell in love with a 23-year-old
artists’ model and Rand devotee, Rand
ousted him, the model, and Barbara from her
Objectivist cult and tried to sabotage his
career. The Brandens, now divorced and living
in L.A., argued to me that her moral absolutism,
her appetite for admiration, and her
strong cruel streak had damaged them and
ruined many others’ lives.
The book addresses some other
unsavoury aspects of Rand’s life.
She had a habit of exaggerating her own suffering,
and she often forgot to credit those
whose ideas she borrowed and who helped
her in more material ways. She humiliated
her husband. She could be narcissistic, shrill,
demanding, untidy, even unclean, and her
use of amphetamines exacerbated her angry
outbursts, unkempt periods, and paranoia.
In the end, she suffered from loneliness, a
sense of betrayal, and bitterness.
Rand was very similar to her characters
in that she was unwavering
in her beliefs. In what ways was
she unlike them?
She was not fearless. She was certainly not
without a desire for recognition and adulation,
as Roark and Galt both are. She suffered
from depression and once said, “John
Galt wouldn’t feel this. He would know how
to handle this. I don’t know,” and “I would
hate for him to see me like this.” Yet she also
wrote, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, “I trust
that no one will tell me that men such as I
write about don’t exist. That this book has
been written—and published—is my proof
that they do.”
|
|